From the Epistle. [69]—“Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one towards another, according to Christ Jesus. That ye may with One mind and One mouth glorify God.”—Rom. xv. 5.

Our object in the present Lecture will, I trust, be the same as that of the Apostle’s prayer in these words . . .

To confirm the truth of a doctrine, it cannot be supposed necessary to answer all objections and difficulties which ingenuity might raise, for in that case, perhaps, no doctrine would ever be established at all. But when any particular truth has been reasonably set forth and defended, it is a kind of farther recommendation of it with the many to show, that it is not in reality surrounded by such serious difficulties as might, at first sight, be supposed. Of course it is not right in any man to suspend his belief of a proved truth, simply because it seems to be attended by some difficulties; still we must deal with human nature as we find it; and the majority do not appear to have that bold and honest mind which will maintain right principles in defiance of all obstacles. Neither have they that lofty faith in God which will trust Him in the face of seeming improbabilities. Therefore, surely, it is a Christian thing to endeavour, now as far as we are able, to remove such difficulties as obstruct the faith of some, concerning the Ministry of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: only premising that our object here is not to prove the truth, but to facilitate its reception. The truth of the Apostolical Succession, being confirmed by foregone proof, cannot, however, be affected by the measure of our success in clearing up difficulties.

It would be a very vain waste of time to attempt to answer many light and frivolous objections; for so far as they are really stumbling blocks to any, they will soon be removed when the doctrine itself is at all understood. Necessarily there will seem to arise from time to time numberless minor points which, however, any man whose judgment is worth convincing would soon be able to explain for himself. In such proportion as a man apprehends the truth, or, if I may so express it, perceives the spirit and scope of the Catholic Religion, he will come to see, at a glance, the answer which, on Catholic principles, would be given to such and such difficulties. This is the Divine reward of an abiding humble faith.

The common and most influential Objections may admit of a two-fold classification; according as they arise from certain supposed difficulties in the Fact, and in its consequences—or in the Doctrine, and its consequences. And we will at once proceed to consider, first, some difficulties thought to be historically and practically connected with the Fact of the Succession, and its consequences.

The Objection which requires, perhaps, the least trouble and information to make, (and from its indistinctness is rather difficult to grapple with,) and which, therefore, is more frequently employed than any other, is founded on a charge of general and fatal Corruption of Christianity in the middle ages. Granting, it is said, the fact, that there was an unbroken Succession of Bishops in the Church Catholic from the beginning, still the gross and palpable corruption which so extensively pervaded the Church for ages, was quite sufficient to rob the Succession of all spiritual value. Now this wide and gratuitous assertion might fairly be met by asking the objector—how he comes to know this?—How he comes to be so sure that personal human corruption would wholly obstruct the super-human grace of a Divine institution? How he arrives at such a certainty that the grace of God is not mightier than the sin of man? How he can be so sure that “where sin abounded,” grace did not “much more abound?” At the best, his objection rests on an unproved assumption in principle—an assumption too, directly at variance with our experience of God’s past dealings with man; as the history of the Jewish people bears witness. It would be difficult, as we remarked in our last Lecture, to find any parallel in the history of the Christian Church to the godless impieties of the Jewish, during four hundred years previous to Christ’s coming, and yet the anointing oil of the Priesthood was not inefficacious, nor even the Prophetical gifts withdrawn, up to the time of the Advent. Even Christ’s persecutor Caiaphas “prophesied, being High Priest that year.” It is, therefore, quite unsatisfactory, at the least, to take for granted in this way, that general Corruption would have totally destroyed the grace of Apostolic Succession. The utmost that can, with any show of fairness, be pretended is, that it might have done so: and even this ought surely to be proved and not barely assumed as it here is. And even supposing that this were proved, then there would be one thing more to be shown, namely, that the amount of corruption in the Church had really, in point of fact, reached that height, which would overwhelm the grace of Her instituted Ministry. And how this could be certainly proved, even if true, it seems hard to say. In the nature of things, it would ever remain a point uncertain to man, and known to God alone. Our objectors, therefore, must assume this point too. And without, perhaps, being much justified in their assumption by the facts of history. For while a lofty moral sense is recognized among men, and so long as humility and self-devotion to God, and disinterested, even though untaught, zeal, are reckoned Christian virtues,—so long, in spite of party misrepresentations, will the great body of our Christian forefathers, lay and clerical, in the middle ages bear honourable comparison with us their overweening children. There is more of the spirit of pride than the spirit of Christ—more of party vanity than of Catholic generosity—more of historical ignorance than of philosophical wisdom, in these self-congratulatory comparisons between our meagre conflicting, though (if you will) enlightened, “systems” of Religion and the One high-minded faith, and chivalrous piety, and unsystematized benevolence of our less instructed ancestors.—At all events, the vague objections drawn from these intangible charges of general corruption, very plainly rest on two unproved assumptions—one of the principle and one of the fact. And this, perhaps, is all that is necessary to be shown. For is not the Succession itself a fact of sufficient magnitude to make us pause before we say, it is WORTH NOTHING? This undeniable fact which we allege; this Succession of Christ’s Apostolic Ministry; this, God’s sustained marvel of eighteen hundred years, is assailed by man’s bare assertion, ‘that it has been SUSTAINED FOR NOTHING.’

But from among these general charges of Corruption, there sometimes is one singled out, as of a magnitude too great to be doubtful, and to the believer in Revelation too malignant to be of questionable effect: the charge, I mean, of Idolatry. If there were nothing else, it is said, to impede the spiritual grace of the Succession, the Idolatry prevalent in the Churches of the Roman Communion would be amply sufficient. And in proof of this, the case of the Jewish Church is confidently quoted, and the fierce denunciations uttered and executed against God’s favoured people for this especial sin, beyond all others. Now here too we seem to have some unproved assumptions; as well as some false reasoning from the analogy of the Jewish people. First of all there is the assumption which we have previously noticed, namely, that there is an amount of personal human sin which fatally cuts off, or obstructs, the instituted channels of Divine grace; which has never yet been proved. Then there is the assumption that idolatry is the specific sin whose guilt would have this effect. And this may possibly be true—when the first assumption is made good—but as yet, this has not been proved. And then there is the third assumption, that the Church in the middle ages was so fully and universally guilty of this sin of idolatry, as to cut off the virtue of the Apostolic Succession for ever. And I need hardly say that this has not been proved, for it must in any case remain a doubtful point—beyond our power to settle for certain. And yet how unheedingly these three assumptions are made use of in the arguments so resolutely and thanklessly urged from the parallel circumstances of the Jews. In the first place it is assumed that the grace of the Jewish institutions was so cut off as to be lost on account of idolatry, in the times before Christ; which cannot be shown. (Rom. xi. 29.) For even if it be shown that that Divine grace was quite suspended during a season of idolatry, it would still be certain, that when the Idolatry was repented of and forsaken, the grace reflowed through the accustomed channels of the Mosaic Institutes. And in spite of all past idolatries, it had not been wholly cut off even at the time of the Coming of Christ. In the next place there is a false assumption concerning the sin of idolatry itself; which seems to have been so severely visited as it was, because it was the specifically forbidden sin, the protesting against which was one great special object of the national existence of the Jews amidst a godless world. It was not, surely, that God abhorred idol worship more than murder, or uncleanness, or injustice; but it was, that “in Judah was God to be known”—the one God—the forgotten God—amidst Gentile polytheism, until the Coming of The Great Mediator. Every Divine interference with that nation seemed to bear this as its reason, “That all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.”—“The Lord, He is the God! The Lord He is the God!” (Joshua iv. 24; 1 Kings viii. 42, 43; Psalm lx. throughout, &c.) Idolatry in that nation had a heinousness beyond all other sin. And great as the guilt of idolatry must ever be, yet it can hardly be called in the same sense, the specific design of the existence of the Christian Church, to protest against that sin beyond all others. And until this can be made good, the strict parallel cannot be established. In the third place, there is a further assumption of an actual analogy of sinfulness in this particular, between the Jewish and Christian Churches, which is not borne out by facts. Jewish idolatry implied a voluntary and intentional abandonment of the worship of Jehovah. Now this can in no wise be affirmed of the worst idolatry of the Romish Hierarchy. No one will say that the Churches in communion with Rome, ever intended to abandon the worship of God, for the sake of Angels and Saints. It may be safely and truly said, that their reverence paid to images, and their invocations of saints and angels, are of an idolatrous nature, and calculated to lead, and have led, to idolatry in the common people; but it would be unreasonable and untrue to say, that the sin of the Church of Rome in this matter was the same sin as that of the Jews when they deliberately abandoned the worship of God. And, therefore, we cannot argue from the one to the other.

If we thus look into this objection fairly, we must see how very little it amounts to. It depends throughout on unproved assumptions. And so far as we may take the analogy in the case of the Jewish Church, it tells directly against the objection. For there cannot be shown more, at most, than a suspension of the grace of the Mosaic Institutes. And if even Jewish idolatry, when repented of, was no impediment to the reflux of the Divine blessing, so it might be in the Christian Church, even if it could be proved universally guilty of the very sin of the Jews—which it cannot be. In different ages, and at different places, some Churches, in communion with Rome, have paid a highly sinful honour to Saints and their images. The amount of such honour has varied greatly in degree, being more or less sinful, at different times and places; yet at the worst, it was never universal, in any essentially idolatrous degree. And even if it had been, there would only (if the analogy were ever so strictly borne out) be a suspension of still latent Apostolic grace, which any branches of the Church might, on repentance, again enjoy. Far be it from us indeed to palliate the sin, or the danger, of the idolatrous practices of the present Church of Rome, but let a legitimate and not a superficial estimate thereof be made. Instead of being misled by words, let us look to principles. We are bound to protest against all which draws off the heart from the true God and only Saviour Jesus Christ; and therefore against Idolatry in all its forms. The Churches throughout the world, in communion with that of Rome, have conformed to the practices of the ungodly world in one way; but so have we in another. And as the heathenish conformities and superstitions of Romanists are condemned by St. Paul, when he forbids Christians even to “eat of things offered to idols;” so the infidel coldness and individual selfishness of many Protestants are equally condemned, when we are bidden to flee from covetousness, “which is idolatry.” Whether, with some, we make idols of a particular Church and the Saints,—or with others, make idols of Private Judgment and Mammon, we are alike guilty. Let there be no rude, impatient haste in judging of any Christians. So long as God bears with us, we may well bear with one another. Idolatry, worse than the Romish, was sanctioned by some of the Churches of Asia. But still they were addressed as “Churches.” That very sanction of actual heathen idolatry, which the Churches had been warned against, they were guilty of allowing. Of both Pergamos and Thyatira it is said in sharp rebuke, that they permitted some among them “to eat of things offered to idols,” which almost amounted to an admission of those heathen gods. And yet, as Churches still, they are warned to “repent and do the FIRST works,” lest God should be provoked to “remove their candlestick out of his place.” So it was not removed as yet.—While the Church Catholic endures perpetually, God cuts off from time to time its irrecoverably corrupt branches. But it is for God, not us, to do it. And with this, let us dismiss the Objection concerning Idolatry.

One further Objection which we shall notice, as connected with the Fact of the Succession, is that which is urged, though in very different senses, against our own Church in particular, by Romanists on the one hand, and Sectarians on the other; both anxious to deny us the possession of that grace of Apostolical Ministry, which the former desire to monopolize, and the latter to set at nought altogether. ‘If (say they with somewhat of ambiguity of expression) the Succession is in the Church Catholic, they who are in a state of Schism, cannot be considered to possess it.’ Now if we were to admit this position exactly as they state it, they would then have to prove us Schismatics, with respect to the Church Catholic, before they could, on this ground, invalidate our Succession. But, in truth, the objection ought to be a little more carefully looked into. The sin of Schism admits of various degrees. Of course, if it be clearly made out that any part of the Church is (not partly torn only, but) totally severed from the Body Catholic, it follows, that that part has not that Sacramental grace which the Church alone possesses. But it is certain that in its fullest sense, even Romanists, acknowledging, as they do, Lay-baptism, could not thus cut off as totally Schismatic, all who are not of their communion;—all the Churches of the East, and of the farthest West—The American, the Scotch, and our own. And the Sectarians cannot, for very shame, deny us a place in the Universal Church. That very liberality which they need for their own sakes will afford us some shelter too. And as to the special charge of heinous Schism urged against us in the particular matter of our Reformation; if we admit it, as fully, as any party can afford to urge it, it could not go the length of invalidating our Orders Apostolical. The Church Catholic anathematized us not; but only the Bishop of Rome, who had not any right or power so to do, [81a] but was himself Schismatical and Anti-christian in attempting it; as St. IrenÆus might have taught him. The Church Catholic we would have been content to be judged by. [81b] We appealed to a General Council, and after wearisome denial and delay, and artifice, they offered us the mockery of Trent. About a hundred and fifty years after our Reformation, we were recognized as a Church by the Greek Church: [82a] though the attempt to unite us with them in one Communion unhappily failed. At the time of our Reformation, notwithstanding much temptation, much carelessness, and much sin, our Apostolical Succession seemed marvellously guarded, as by a heavenly hand. The documents are as plain, the facts as sure, as history, invidiously sifted, can make them; so that the candid Romanist and the learned Jesuit cannot deny them. Let any one examine it for himself. Any man, who will deal fairly with facts, will be obliged to own that there have been greater confusions and Schisms [82b] in the see of Rome itself, than in the see of Canterbury.—But they who go the length of affirming a cessation of Apostolic grace in any particular Church or branch of a Church on the ground of total Schism, from the whole body of Christ, must excuse us if we ask them for proof of their assertion; and tell them, that until it is proved, we must treat it as a pure (though a very convenient) assumption.Those further historical and practical Objections which might be urged against the Apostolical Succession, either in the Church Universal, or in our own particular branch of it, would be such as attempt to throw some degree of doubt on the fact itself; [83] and they have already been answered by anticipation in the last Lecture, in which we mainly dwelt on the Evidence of the fact. To notice them here in any greater detail, would therefore be only to repeat needlessly what has been already said. But closely connected with the Objections thus briefly considered to the facts of the Succession, there are generally supposed to be certain fatal CONSEQUENCES, which it may be well just to glance at. “Popery,” and its fearful train of practical evils, an infringement of liberty of conscience, and spiritual slavery, are apprehended as the sure result, if the Apostolical line be admitted to be preserved. But is it thus? Are any of us anxious for a “liberty” which is confessedly synonymous with a freedom from obedience to God’s own laws and appointments? Or can we not admit the right of any man to “liberty of conscience,” without insisting that such a liberty will suffice to guide him into all truth? Doubtless every man has a right to move on unshackled towards the “heavenly city,” but shall he therefore dispense with the only effectual guide? Granting him the fullest “freedom,” may he not yet miss his way?—Whoever will take the pains to think of it, will see that this Apostolical doctrine of the Succession, is no other kind of restraint upon liberty of conscience, than any other Apostolical doctrine. It may certainly be said that if a man be not blessed with the blessings of the Church Apostolical, he is in a perilous condition; but it is difficult to see how this affects liberty of conscience, any more than the assertion, “He that believeth not shall be condemned.” So that such an Objection is only that of the infidel, in a slightly modified shape, when he complains of the “hardship of not providing for the case of the conscientious unbeliever.”

And as to the fear of Popery; that seems a still more strange Objection. Surely the very reverse is the more correct reasoning. If it be a fact capable of proof, and which was believed by all Christians for 1500 years, That there was a true Succession of Ministers from the Apostles—are we not taking the very surest ground against Romanists, when we show, that we possess just such a descended Ministry, in no degree dependent on communion with their Church, or any other single Church? If we could not show such a Ministry, then the man, who from examination found out the truth of the necessity of an Apostolic Church, might be obliged indeed to resort to the communion of Rome. So that by asserting our true Apostolical claims, we are so far from giving place to Rome, that we are striking the only effectual blow at her supremacy—we are so far from forcing a man to join the Papacy, that we are offering him his only refuge from its spiritual tyranny. And as to all such half-infidel objections as, ‘that there would be nothing to check the onward advance of corruption and error,’ and the like, if it were thus taken to be unlawful to sin against, or set aside, the Apostolical Succession, in any case; it would be quite enough to reply, that we ought to be content to trust God for the success of His own appointed institutions. But there are facts, sufficiently strong to enable us to speak much more explicitly on this head. Among those who threw off the Roman yoke in the sixteenth century, we see, that the Non-episcopal communities of the Continent have gone down into worse than Roman Corruption, “even denying THE Lord that bought them;” from which depth of doctrinal corruption our Episcopal Church has been graciously preserved. Not, indeed, that it is right to depend too much on this kind of evidence, popular as it may be. It is better for the Christian to exercise a habit of unenquiring confidence in his Heavenly Father, trusting Him for the “consequences” of His Own appointments, disregarding the sophistries, and fears, and oppositions of the world.

Passing, now, from this class of Practical Objections, let us consider some of those which are supposed to lie against the Doctrine of the Succession. They are, indeed, so peculiarly unchristian, so faithless in their principles, and so indefinite in their shape, that it will not be so easy a task to deal with them; but we must briefly attempt it.

One of the commonest and most comprehensive of these objections, is that which is advanced against the whole Doctrine of an Authoritative Ministry in the Church, though more especially against the notion of a Descended Priesthood; viz. That it is a going back to “beggarly elements,” a perpetuation of Judaism in the Church. They who urge this, do not scruple to deny all similarity of office between the Christian and the Jewish Priesthood, and they represent it as essentially Anti-christian in any man in these days to pretend to the Priestly office. “If,” say they, “it be even granted that a separate order of Ministers is sanctioned by the Gospel, still it is both arrogant and unscriptural to pretend to institute any sort of parallel between the Christian and the Jewish Ministries.” It is strange that any man can speak so thoughtlessly, who has had the advantage of reading even an English Testament. Not only is the principle of the necessity of a proper Ministry assumed throughout the Christian Scriptures, but the very analogy which is now denied between the Christian and the Jewish ministries is throughout assumed, and sometimes expressly insisted on, and drawn out. If it were so dangerous and Anti-christian an error to pretend to a Priesthood in the Church, at all resembling that of the Temple, surely the Apostles would have been especially anxious to avoid using any expressions which should seem to imply any such thing. St. Paul’s language, if not to be taken simply as he employed it—that is, if it were not literally true—was calculated much to mislead. It could not have been safe, when the early Church had so strong a tendency to Judaize, to make use of what may be called “priestly terms” and allusions. And yet this is done continually in the New Testament, and even as a “matter of course.” Observe, for instance, that sentence of St. Paul, specially concerning the ancient Priesthood, but so widely expressed as to convey a general principle, assumed as known to be equally true now as of old—“No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron.” (Heb. v. 1, 4). So the Holy Baptist at the beginning of the Gospel puts forth this as an Evangelical principle, concerning any Divine Ministry, not excepting Christ’s Own; “A man can take unto himself nothing” [margin]. (John iii. 27, &c.) St. Paul likewise calls Christ Himself “the Apostle and High-priest,” linking the two ideas together—joining the Apostolical and the Priestly offices—but saying that even He “glorified not Himself to be made an High-priest.” [88] The Father “sent” Him; and “as His Father sent Him, so He sent His Apostles.” And what, again, might we not fairly conclude from such an allusion as the following, even if there were nothing more clear? “We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle;” (Heb. xiii. 10.) which occurs immediately after the injunction concerning the Ministry, “remember THEM” (v. 7). And in the verses immediately following, we find a similar injunction, and similar sacrificial allusions; (v. 11, 15–17.) Must we not think that the Apostle recognized some analogy between the Jewish and the Christian Ministries? [89] But we have, in addition to such manifold allusions, some passages much more direct and indisputable. In writing to the Corinthians, St. Paul places the Eucharistic Table of the Lord in a position precisely parallel with that of the Jewish Altar, and founds his whole argument on it; (1 Cor. x. 13, &c.) and places together on the same footing the Ministries of the Temple and of the Church, (ch. ix. 13.) His argument for the right of the Christian Minister to a temporal maintenance is wholly derived from the analogy of the Jewish Priesthood; this would, then, be no argument, if there were no analogy. His words are, “Do ye not know that they which Minister about holy things, live of the things of the altar? even so hath the Lord ordained, that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.” Evidently the former Ministry is assumed to be the pattern of the latter. But in another place, it is still more fully carried out. The Apostle shows the Corinthians, that the analogy between the two Ministries was such as to raise the Christian Ministry immeasurably superior to the Jewish, both in privilege and power. What Jewish Priest could ever use such exalted language as St. Paul had employed concerning the punishment of sin? (1 Cor. v. 5.) or its pardon? (2 Cor. ii. 10, 11, 15.) And so he declared his Ministry to be much superior to that of Moses himself. (2 Cor. iii. 7.) “If the Ministration of condemnation (the Jewish Ministry) be glory, how much more doth the Ministration of righteousness (the Christian) exceed in glory? For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of that which excelleth; for if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.” Moses, he further shows, had a “veiled,” we an “unveiled” Ministry. “We all with unveiled face, beholding as in a glass, the glory of the Lord.” (v. 18.) “We preach not ourselves,” indeed, he adds, “but Christ Jesus the Lord, AND Ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake; for God . . . hath shined in Our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of His glory.” (ch. iv. 6; see also ch. v. 19, 20.)—The promises of abiding grace, “enduring” mercy, and perpetual blessing to the ancient Israel, are commonly enough thought to await fulfilment in the Church: so also, shall not the ancient promises of an everlasting Priesthood, which were not fulfilled to the Jews, be amply fulfilled in the Church?—The One Priesthood of Christ “continueth ever” manifested in His Church according to His will; “not after the law of a carnal commandment, but (apa?aat??) after the power of an endless life.”

Perhaps it may be thought needless to dwell longer on this objection to the doctrine of the proper Ministry of the Church. The other objections, however, which are commonly urged, are of so similar a character as to be partly answered already, by what has been said. It may be useful, nevertheless, to bestow a few more remarks on them. Some who scarcely like to object to the Doctrine of the Ministry in open terms, are given to speak of the “Succession” as a “carnal” doctrine, though without clearly showing us any other doctrine to supply its place. It would be well for those who lightly adopt such language, if they would weigh its meaning, before they make such use of it. If by calling the Succession a “carnal” doctrine, they mean that the doctrine is very different from, and perhaps inconsistent with all that they take to be “spiritual,” there is nothing very fearful in the charge. Only it is scarcely consistent with Christian humility to adopt from Scripture a term of opprobrium, in order to make of it a private use of our own. Such objectors may be reminded that there were some in the Church of Corinth, who took themselves to be “spiritual” enough to dispute the Apostle’s directions in some Church matters. And St. Paul replied simply by asserting his Ministerial authority, however “carnal” that might be thought. His words are, “If any think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) At all events the charge of “carnality” ought to be a little explained, that we may know what meaning to affix to it. In what sense, for instance, the “Doctrine of laying on of hands,” can be called carnal, and not also the doctrine of “Baptism by water?”

But there are those who somewhat modify this objection, and say, that our doctrine is too “technical” to be worthy of a Divine Revelation. That is to say, it is unworthy of the spirituality and dignity of Christ’s religion to be thus necessarily allied to outward and sensible forms. But surely this is as pure an assumption, as all the other objections which have been considered. At least, it remains to be proved; and so far as the analogy of God’s previous dealing with mankind may guide us, we should be inclined perhaps to a very different conclusion. What, for instance, could be more “technical” than the Scriptural account of the sin of Adam? The moral aspect of the offence is not dwelt on; it is simply presented to us as a disobedience of a set injunction, a failure in formal allegiance.—What, again, could be more “technical” than the acceptable sacrifice of Abel?—Or the trial of Abraham’s faith?—And might we not point in a similar way to the whole system established by God among the Jews?—Or let the more Spiritual institute of “Prophecy” be considered. There was much in it that would now be thought very “technical.” The prophet Balaam, [93a] though an unholy man, had power to “bless and curse;” there was a potency in his word. And then we read of the “schools of the prophets.” And the Spirit of Prophecy seemed poured out in so technical and systematic a way, that there were certain places, and hours, and modes, [93b] in which the Spirit was in active energy, in such wise that strangers who came near were affected by it. So we read, that king Saul and his messengers, when they came to the company of prophets at Ramah, all began likewise to prophesy; (1 Sam. xix. 23.) just as Saul himself had done on another occasion, previous to his anointing (ch. x. 10). Or, to come to a later period, how “technical” does the Ministry of the Baptist appear throughout! And yet our Lord submitted to his “technical” Baptism, saying, “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” And surely we might make the same kind of remarks on the whole life of our Lord Himself. Look at the formal Genealogies at the beginning.—Is it not a strangely “technical” appointment, that a grace so divine as that which redeemed mankind must needs flow through the line of David? And be recorded so scrupulously, as though each link of the chain were important?—And in all that Christ did, is there not much that might by some be called “technicality?” His conformity to the Jewish ritual: His temptation, His replies to the Jews, His difficulties, questions, and dark sayings, and many of His miracles, might surely by many be so esteemed. [94] And then again, His Church and Sacraments: and His injunctions to the Apostles; as that, to “begin at Jerusalem” in their preaching, which they technically obeyed to the letter. (Acts xiii. 46.) But enough is plain, surely, from all this to show us that the technical nature of an institution may be no objection whatever to the Divine sanction of it. At all events, the contrary is an assumption requiring proof. Nay, further; if it be true, that man’s sight cannot at present endure the light of unveiled truth, then it may be that some sort of technical expression of truth might even be expected in a Divine revelation. God manifests Himself “in part,” and “in part” He shrouds Himself from us still.

But after all that has been said, there will be some who will rejoin: If this doctrine were of so great an importance, why is there not some much plainer statement about it in Scripture—something, that is, which might put it beyond doubt? It might be worth considering in reply to this, whether such a question does not arise from a complete misapprehension of the nature and design of the Inspired Volume? But, in any case, it is evident that the Socinian, or even the Infidel might easily ask the very same thing. The Scripture testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity, plain as we think it, is evidently not so plain as to prevent doubts and differences of opinion. Can that be a valid objection against the doctrine of the Succession, which is none whatever against the Trinity? The Arians of the fourth age would gladly have accepted of any thing in “Scripture-terms,” and pleaded hard for leaving the truth of the Trinity in a (so called) “Scriptural” vagueness of expression. But the Catholic Church determined otherwise. And Her interpretation of those Scriptures which contain the Apostolical Succession, is quite as uniform and unequivocal as of those which contain the truth of the Holy Trinity.

Here, while leaving this class of objections also, (raised, like the former, on pure assumptions) we must not omit to remind any who are trying by the aid of such objections to rid themselves of the Catholic truth, that there is, at best, a fearful uncertainty in the course which they are so pursuing—an uncertainty which seems not to have one solid advantage of any kind to recommend it.—But now before terminating our remarks on the manifold objections of men to this truth of God, it is important perhaps to make reference to some of the supposed, and the real Consequences of admitting this Apostolical Doctrine. In speaking of these, perhaps, our opponents manifest less knowledge and more unfairness, than with respect to any other of the topics in debate. The utmost pains are often taken to make out, on the ground of our “exclusiveness,” a case of bigotry, superstition, and intolerance. So that there is the more occasion to direct attention to these, which, imaginary as they are, form, nevertheless, the most cogent objections in the popular mind.

In the first place, whoever puts forth any statement concerning any subject, as the truth, necessarily implies that a different statement would be false; and therefore liable to all the consequences of the falsehood. Whatever is put forth as Truth, is necessarily exclusive. And is the Catholic doctrine more chargeable with “exclusiveness,” on this ground, than the doctrine of any party, or even individual?—When any man says that he thinks himself right in any matter, he virtually says that those who differ from him are wrong. And as to the future consequences of being wrong; it will scarcely be denied, that the Sectarians are generally far more reckless in pronouncing judgments on that matter than we.

The popular shape in which this objection is most successfully brought forward is, That the doctrine of the Succession “unchurches” all the Protestant communities of Christendom, which are not Episcopal. This is exaggerated and represented as the very acme of intolerance, and equivalent to a judgment on our part that they must all necessarily perish everlastingly. It is melancholy to see the art with which this misrepresentation is brought forward to check any half-formed conviction of the truth, such as arises from a candid review of the unanswerable Evidence. It only shows us that there are some minds which it is hopeless to attempt to convince.Let us, however, look at the objection rapidly, first, in an historical, and then in a theoretical light. Doubtless, if the Apostolic Succession be admitted, it follows that there can be no certainty of valid Sacraments apart from it. And those communities cannot be pronounced to be true Churches, which have no Succession. Now, upon this it is argued, that there is an inconsistency between us and our early Reformers: for, that they did not pronounce the Continental Protestants to be “unchurched,” which our principles oblige us to do; and that therefore we are more “Popish” and bigoted than they.—How far this is the real state of the case, they best can judge who are best acquainted with the writings of our Reformers. As to their principles, they are certainly not so doubtful as to be only arrived at by a silent deduction from their actions. Take, for instance, Archbishop Cranmer. His opinions, even in his later years, after he had well looked into the matter, and had passed through some change of sentiments, are left on record in his Sermons. [98] In speaking of the necessary and exclusive Succession of the Ministry, he goes to the utmost extent of the Catholic Doctrine. But it may be said, generally, that the necessity of Apostolic Ordination was not a debated point at the Reformation. And those, abroad, who eventually departed from the Succession, did it with so much reluctance, and with such ample admission of their regret, [99a] that it could only be regarded as a temporary affliction of the Church. When Rome was exerting all her strength against the Reformed, it surely would have been deemed an uncalled for severity, had the English Church been forward to condemn the Continental brethren; especially as they did not defend the principle of separation from the Episcopacy; but just the reverse. It was surely enough that our Reformers asserted their own principles, (as they plainly did [99b]) without proceeding formally to condemn their “less happy” [99c] brethren abroad. Add to all which, the fact, that that generation of Protestants had, all of them, been baptized in the Catholic Church; and most of their Ministers had received Episcopal Ordination; so that even the next generation might receive valid Baptism. It would be natural of course to pronounce a very careful judgment, if any, concerning such persons. It might have been difficult to say that such communities, however imperfect, were “not Churches.” This might have fully accounted for the reserve of our Reformers, even had it been greater than it was; more especially as the restoration of the lost Succession might not only have been hoped for, but, at one time, even expected. [100] But every one must surely perceive the difference of our position from that of our Reformers. We assert precisely the same principles, and in their own language. But we have to act towards men who on principle reject the Succession; who are not for certain possessed of any Catholically Ordained Teachers, or so surely Baptized people: and who are perpetuating this awfully doubtful and Schismatical state of things. If in our circumstances we were to imitate what is thought the reserve of our Reformers, we might be fairly suspected as not holding their principles.

But the theoretical view of this objection is, perhaps, still more important to be considered. Let any man examine, what this charge of our unchurching so many other Protestants really amounts to, at the utmost. To what extent of “uncharitableness” does our theory oblige us?—And, first of all, how can we obviate the practical difficulty already alluded to, which is urged with so much confidence, that unordained ministers of many sects, have so large a measure of spiritual success?—It is remarkable that they who urge this, do not see how variously it is often applied to support the most opposite and jarring sentiments. And who can ever decide on the real value of any such appeals? We might admit, safely, that good has, at times, been done by unordained teachers, and yet, in that, admit nothing inconsistent with the exclusive Catholic claims of the Ordained Ministry. It has often been argued that even the Heathen Philosophy and the Mahometan Theism, were over-ruled as God’s instruments of good, though evil in their nature: and the corruptest kind of Christianity may be well admitted to be much better than either of them. [101] We cannot indeed allow the distorted estimate, which human vanity makes of its own good doings; but we will not question God’s sovereignty over man’s sin, from which He often brings good. We think it wrong not to “receive Christ” (Luke ix. 53.); and “follow the Apostles;” but we would not “call down fire from heaven.” We think that it “shall be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment” than for a wilful rejecter, or non-receiver of the Apostles; but we judge not. They are in God’s hands. (Matt. x. 14.)—We have before said that we pronounce no private judgment on others.

And let it not be supposed that this is only a tacit way of avoiding a difficulty, to which our principles fairly conduct us. If they be honestly looked at, the Catholic principles have in them far more of real charity than any others. There is a large sense, in which every Baptized man is included in the Catholic Church, and may be, according to his measure, partaker of Her privileges; though he may not trace the grace to its true source, but may mistake the hand that blesses him. [102a] And the wideness of the Catholic principle, as to the bestowal of Baptismal grace, ought not to be lost sight of here. In the Church there seems to have been recognized a sort of threefold validity of Baptism. The first, [102b] as ordinarily received from a Minister of the Church; the second [103a] pertaining to the grace of martyrdom, or “Baptism by blood;” and the third [103b] even extending in cases of extreme necessity to Christian Confession, and the earnest desire of the Sacrament. Doubtless, it is The All-seeing God alone who can decide on any individual case. Yet it is easy to see how the Catholic doctrine does at least open a wide door of charitable hope. [103c] How many even of those who are outwardly Schismatical, may not be wholly so, we can never know here. How far the sincerity of some, or the circumstances of others, may avail as excuses before God, He only can decide. Still, while our charity “hopeth all things,” we know that where there is doubt only, there may be danger; and charity itself would oblige us to warn; for we think there is this peril; and we warn those Churchmen of their greater peril, who sanction Religious principles, or frequent even doubtful assemblies, which the Church acknowledges not. They not only endanger themselves, but by their example may fatally mislead the souls of their brethren. But let us take the extremest case that can be alleged, namely, that of persons wilfully guilty of total and deliberate Schism from the Apostolic Church. When we deny to such all share in the Church’s peculiar grace here, or glory hereafter, are we denying them aught which they do not deny themselves? aught which they even wish to claim? For instance—The Church has ever maintained that Baptism in the Apostolic community conveys the most exalted and unearthly blessings, and by consequence maintains, that the unbaptized possess them not. But is it not a fact, that all such persons totally reject the notion of there being any spiritual value in Baptism? Does our uncharitableness then place them in a worse position than that which they voluntarily choose for themselves, and resolutely defend? Surely we are rather taking a high view of our own privileges and grace in Christ, than in any degree depriving others of theirs. We leave them where they place themselves. And it seems hard to call this a want of charity. It is impossible to say that we are depriving of Sacraments those who do not even pretend to them, except in form. It is strange and uncandid to say, that we UN-church those, who (in our sense of the word) do not even pretend to be Churches.This charge of want of charity generally proceeds, too, from those who ought certainly to be the very last to bring it forward. They are our commonest assailants who themselves so gloomily narrow the circle of possible salvation, as to affirm that all shall inevitably perish, except that exceedingly small number whom they esteem in their peculiar sense, “spiritual,” and “converted.” We, on the contrary, whatever we think of the Church’s Privileges, hold with St. Peter, that “in every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of Him;” [105a] and yet we are thought “uncharitable.” Far from condemning on so tremendous a scale as they will venture to do, we pronounce no judgment personally on any:—and yet they call us “uncharitable.” Doubtless we see unspeakable danger in the very idea of differing or dissenting and departing from the Church [105b] as descended from the Apostles of Christ; but methinks there is no bigotry in saying that.—“Now may the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one toward another, according to Christ Jesus!”And now, at the close of this review of the objections urged by vain man against the firm, abiding truth of God, it seems impossible wholly to repress the feeling which rises, on looking back on such melancholy indications of mental perversity.—The view of a series of such objections to such a Truth, accompanied as they are by a guilty host of unnamed minor objections, taking shelter beneath them, is almost enough to dishearten the Minister of Christ. It seems as if there were arranged side by side all the elaborate tokens of a Father’s most tender care for a reckless family; and of their thankless contempt for his love and watchfulness. The very design of Christ’s Ascension was to give “Apostles and prophets” to his people; [106] but now there are objections to them all.—It were surely a revolting task to take by the hand the young but corrupted heir of some princely domain, and lead him through the stately halls of his fathers, and find him heartlessly sneering at their massy and unbroken grandeur, and treating with a rude contempt the mighty things and the noble of past times—“Objecting” to every thing! Mocking the now useless towers and unneeded battlements—Objecting to them as ‘contrivances of cowardice.’ Or pointing to the chapel, to the Cross, or to some ancestral effigy of Prayer—“Objecting” to them as symbols of decaying superstition! It would be miserable to witness such a wretched lack of natural piety in the heart of a child.—But is there not some parallel to it in what is seen among us, whensoever we “go about our Spiritual Zion, telling the towers thereof; marking well Her bulwarks, and considering Her palaces, to tell it to the generation following?” We are scarcely listened to with patience by many: and some even scorn to accompany us through our time-honoured courts. Too many modern Christians, thankless, cold-hearted children of our Holy Church, come very little short of realizing the picture we have drawn! They carelessly tread our solemn aisles, and we bid them move reverently “because of the angels.” [107] And they wonder at our “superstition” and “weakness!” And “the fathers” (say they) were ignorant men, and their works the cumbrous records of departed folly! And as to the Saints of early days—there are decided objections to their views; objections to their rules of sanctity; objections to their prayers and customs, and heaven-ward observances; objections, in a word, to almost everything received from the Holy Founders of our Faith, and loved by all our Fathers!

The long line of the “departed just,” like a still-continued choir of angels of Bethlehem, seem to be ever silently heralding “peace on earth, good will to men,” while men weary not of raising objections thereto; as if deeming it a hardship to be blessed!—Such is the Church’s mysterious history. An Almighty God ever “waiting to be gracious:” and man rebelling against Him ever!—God sending down His gifts of grace: Man spurning the blessing!—God “bowing His heavens and coming down.” And man “objecting” still!—“How long shall it be, O Lord, to the end of these wonders!”